I first met Sam Francis at a
meeting of the John Randolph club in Chicago. He was sitting at a table with
Tom Fleming. Both men are two years older than me. Both gave me the impression
that I was a freshman trying to sit at the Junior Lunch Table in the School
Cafeteria.

The last time I saw Sam
Francis, it was at a meeting in Washington. Sam was the moderator at a talk
given by John Tyndall, a leader of the National Front in England. Mr. Tyndall
was trying to get us enthused about being white guys, and so he launched into a
peroration about the glories of Elizabethan England. Since Elizabethan England
was the place where Catholic priests, like Edmund Campion, SJ, could be hanged
until not quite dead, drawn and quartered and have their entrails thrown into
boiling oil for the crime of saying the Mass, I was less than enthralled by the
picture Mr. Tyndall had painted for us. In fact, if his intention was to bring
us all together, his talk had the exact opposite effect. Since both Father
Campion and Lord Burghley and his henchman Walsingham were all white, just what
meaning did this fact possess?

My friend Gerry Bruen must
have been entertaining the same thoughts because after Mr. Tyndall finished his
speech, Gerry asked him whether “the Irish are white.” The question annoyed Mr.
Tyndall, who got a disgusted look on his face and said, “Of course, the Irish
are white. My mother is Irish.”

At this point, Sam Francis
broke into the discussion, and turning to Mr. Tyndall, he asked, “Are Jews
white?” Mr. Tyndall was taken aback by the question. After a long pause, he
turned to Sam and said, “I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” So today
I’d like to honor the memory of Sam Francis by trying to answer his unanswered
question: “Are Jews White?”

But before I get to that
answer, I need to talk about the Culture Wars.

Sam and I were both casualties
of the culture wars of the ‘60s. Both of us started out in professional life as
academics, both of us got fired for transgressing the canons of political
correctness. In this I claim seniority over Sam. I was fired from a position as
assistant professor at a Catholic college in 1980 for being against abortion.
Sam was fired from the Washington Times many years later. What we had in
common was not some racial identity—our persecutors were as white as we
were—but rather the fact that both of our ethnic groups had been declared
wicked during the opening battle of the culture wars of our generation, namely,
the cultural and sexual revolutions of the ‘60s. Sam was a white southerner, a
group which had been under attack since the beginning of the civil rights
movement, if not the Civil War.And I was a Catholic ethnic from one of the big cities of the North.
Although the war against Catholic ethnics in the North was a post-World War II
campaign (that was waged under a number of names ranging from urban renewal in
the ‘50s to busing in the ‘70s), it actually antedated the civil rights
movement’s assault on the South by a number of years.

As proof that the two
campaigns were linked by something more than my mind, I point to Martin Luther
King’s arrival in Chicago a little over 40 years ago in the summer of 1966. It
would be tempting to portray what happened in Chicago during the summer and
early fall of 1966 as a racial struggle, but that’s not really what this battle
in the culture wars was really about. Martin Luther King’s people noticed that
the minute they set foot in Chicago.

“Down South,”
Southern Christian Leadership Conference Worker Dorothy Tillman said, “you were
black or white. You wasn't Irish or Polish or all of this.” What the SCLC
attempted to do was transpose the moral mandate they felt they had to end
integration in the south, to the cities of the north where segregation existed
only by tenuous analogy. Ethnicity, not skin color, determined residence in
cities like Chicago. Up North, White was a completely negative designation,
deriving from black, which referred to the skin color of the newly arrived
migrants from the south.I know of
no northern city which had a neighborhood called “White Town,” but Chicago did
have a Jew Town, a Greek Town, and a China Town. Detroit had its own Greek Town
as well as a Pole Town. Cincinnati had its “Over the Rhein” and Philadelphia
had a Germantown and its own China town as well as neighborhoods which everyone
knew were ethnic even if the name of the ethnic group wasn’t included in the
name. So, everyone who lived in Philadelphia knew that Bridesburg was Polish,
South Philly was Italian, and that Northeast Philadelphia, when I grew up
there, was Jewish.If Chicago’s
ethnics became “white” during the struggles over the social engineering of
housing in the ‘40s and ‘50s, it was only because they defined themselves as
the negative of the threat, which they perceived as black hordes streaming into
and then taking over their neighborhoods, not because of any racial identity of
their own.

The only thing
that linked people like me with people like Sam Francis in the culture wars was
the psychic space we occupied in the mind of the enemy. One of the most
formidable culture warriors of the 1960s was a Jew by the name of Leo Pfeffer.
In his book The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the
Shaping of Public Policy, Murray Friedman refers to Pfeffer as the lawyer
who “advised,
planned and argued more church-state cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than
anyone else in American history.” In 1947 Pfeffer

filed
briefs in two historic cases before the US Supreme Court: Everson v. Board of
Education, challenging a New Jersey law that allowed state funds to be used for
busing school children to religious schools; and McCollum v. Board of
Education, which concerned an Illinois released-time program permitting school
facilities to be utilized for religion instruction during regular school time.

This is what
Pfeffer had to say about his opponents in the Culture Wars. In a memoir which
appeared in 1975 in the liberal Catholic journal Commonweal entitled
“The ‘Catholic’ Catholic Problem,” Pfeffer wrote that “whenever I felt that my
daughter should not have something she wanted, she threatened to marry a
Catholic army officer from Alabama.”“The truth of the matter,” Pfeffer continued, “was that I did not like
the Catholic Church as I did not like the military and the South and for pretty
much the same reasons. In the first place, it stood for what I opposed, and
opposed . . . what I stood for.”

Sam and I came
under attack during the Culture Wars not because we were “white,” not because
we belonged to the same racial group, but because our enemies viewed us as
belonging to two different groups, both of which they found repugnant.

This leads me to
my first conclusion about the Culture Wars. The Culture Wars weren’t racial;
they were ethnic. Sam and I were both white, but we belonged to two different
ethnic groups because ethnicity in America is based on religion. According to
the sociological theory known as the triple melting pot, country of origin
ceases to be an indication of ethnic identity after three generations in America.
At that point, it is replaced by religion, which becomes the source of ethnic
identity in America. So the triple melting pot, as of the 1950s when Will
Herberg wrote his book Protestant, Catholic, Jew, refers to Protestants,
Catholics and Jews. America far from being some unified nation inhabited by
generic Americans turns out to be a lot like the former Yugoslavia, a country
made up of three ethnic groups based on three religions each engaged in a form
of long-standing covert warfare against each other, one which often, as I
attempted to show in my book The Slaughter
of Cities, involves ethnic cleansing.

My second
conclusion flows from the first. The culture wars are simply not understandable
in racial terms. The different sides in the culture wars may have used race as
a pretext, but the identity of the antagonists was ethnic not racial in the
sense commonly portrayed in the media.In applying the ethnic calculus to this period of history, we discover
that the blacks, even if they were the most visible player in the civil rights
phase of the culture wars of the ‘60s, were ultimately the pawn of other
groups, which were just as white as the groups they attacked.

In his book Fatal
Embrace, Benjamin Ginsburg confirms our suspicion that the racial conflicts
of the ‘60s weren’t really racial at all by showing that virtually every major
civil rights organization, including or one might say especially, the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference was in some sense of the word controlled by
Jews:

Jews served as
major financiers and strategists for the civil rights movement. Jews served as
well as the key liaisons between the civil rights movement and the government
during both the Kennedy and Johnson eras. Jewish groups, organized through the
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, had long worked closely
with blacks in efforts to eliminate housing and employment discrimination from
the 1950s and after.

Jewish contributions
provided a substantial share of the funding for such civil rights groups as the
NAACP and CORE. Jewish attorneys were at the forefront of the legal offensive
against the American apartheid system. Stanley Levinson, a longtime official
and fund-raiser for the American Jewish Congress, became Martin Luther King’s
chief aid and advisor, having previously served as a major fund-raiser for
Bayard Rustin. Harry Wachtel was a major legal advisor and fundriaser for the
SCLC. Levinson and Wachtel were often called King’s twin Jewish lawyers. Jack
Greenberg, head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was the most important single
civil rights lawyer in the United States. Jews comprised a large segment -
perhaps one-third of the whites who participated in civil rights marches and
protests in the South during the 1960s.

Kevin MacDonald, America’s
premier racial theorist, says pretty much the same thing as Ginsberg in the
article on the Jewish-Black alliance which appeared in Race and the American
Prospect, the book Sam was editing before he died:

“The record,” MacDonald
writes, “shows quite clearly that Jewish organizations as well as a great
number of individual Jews contributed enormously to the success of the movement
to increase the power of blacks and alter the racial hierarchy of the United
States. (p. 221).

“Jews,” he continues, “have
played a prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the founding of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP) in 1909. The NAACP was founded
by wealthy German Jews, non-Jewish whites and blacks led by W.E. B. Dubois. The
Jewish role was predominant:

By
mid-decade, the NAACP had something of the aspect of an adjunct of B’nai B’rith
and the American Jewish Committee, with the brothers Joel and Arthur Spingarn
serving as board chairman and chief legal counsel, respectively; Herbert Lehman
on the exectuive commitee; Lillian Wald and Walter Sachs on the board
(althought not simultaneously); and Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg as financial
angels. By 1920, Herbert Seligman was director of public relations and Martha
Greuning served as his assistant. . . . Small wonder that a bewildered Marcus
Garvey stormed out of NAACP headquarters in 1917 muttering that it was a white
organization.

The NAACP, in other words,
was a Jewish organization that mobilized America’s blacks to fight racial
discrimination insofar as this was congruent with Jewish goals. Benjamin
Ginsberg is remarkably frank in discussing the terms of the Jewish-Black
alliance:

By
speaking on behalf of blacks as well as Jews . . . Jewish groups were able to
present themselves as fighting for the abstract and quintessential American
principles of fair play and equal justice rather than the selfish interests of
Jews alone. This would not be the last time that Jewish organizations found
that helping blacks could serve their own interests as well. . . . Gains
achieved on behalf of one, Jewish organizations reasoned, would serve the
interests of both, while allowing Jews to project an image of unselfish pursuit
of the public good. . . . For Jews . . . gains achieved on behalf of blacks in
terms of equality of opportunity also promised to serve their own interest in
eliminating discrimination.

It turns out that there was
more to this alliance than simply fighting discrimination, by allying
themselves with the blacks, the Jews found that they could covertly attack the
people they perceived as their main political enemies and weaken if not destroy
their political influence. I’m talking again about the ethnic groups to which
Sam and I belonged. Ginsberg goes on to say that “Jews . . . had been
suspicious of conservative Southerners at least since the 1920 Leo Frank case
and were only too happy to help reduce their influence in American politics.”
Having succeeded in the South, the WASP-Jewish coalition behind the civil
rights movement decided to deal with its enemies in the North, namely the
Catholic ethnics. “Liberals,” Ginsberg continues, “seized the opportunity to
attack and weaken their political rivals in the North as well. Liberals charged
the Northern Democratic party’s coalition of machine politicians and labor
leaders [i.e., the Catholics] with racism, worked to deny them
representation at Democratic national conventions and sought to cut off their
access to federal patronage.”

Richard Daley, mayor of
Chicago, was the quintessential Catholic machine politician, and as such he
became the target of the Jewish-WASP alliance when Martin Luther King arrived
in Chicago a little over 40 years ago in the summer of 1966. Why did Martin
Luther King go to Chicago, the site of the worst debacle of his public career?
He went to Chicago because 1) the Quakers invited him 2) because Nelson
Rockefeller gave him $25,000 if he would take his campaign to the North and 3)
because, as Ginsberg puts it, “Stanley Levinson, a longtime official and
fund-raiser for the American Jewish Congress, became Martin Luther King’s chief
aid and advisor.”

The Jews, as the
ethnic constellation around Martin Luther King shows, could not have done this
damage alone. They were part of an alliance that included the Northeastern WASP
establishment and the main-line Protestant denominations, which saw the civil
rights movement as their great crusade.That alliance, according to Ginsberg, began in the years before World
War II, when the Jews and the Anglophile WASP establishment united against
America First and got America into the war on the side of England. It went into
a brief period of remission after the War, but Senator Joe McCarthy’s attacks
on the WASP establishment got it going again just in time for the civil rights
movement and the sexual revolution, when Jews and WASPs united to get the
government into the birth control business as a way of controlling the fertility
of their unsuspecting Negro allies.

The Negro-Jewish
alliance fell apart years ago. The definitive moment was the Ocean
Hill-Brownsville School Board battle of 1967 when Negro activists aided by the
Ford Foundation took over that school board and promptly fired all of its
Jewish teachers and principals.

The Jewish-WASP
alliance lasted longer, but it too is now showing signs that it is breaking up
in a messy and acrimonious divorce.As evidence for the break-up I would cite the recommendations of the
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, the Walt-Mearsheimer report on the Israeli
Lobby, and Jimmy Carter’s book calling Israel an Apartheid state. As evidence
of the acrimony, I would cite David Horowitz’s critique of Carter’s book which
begins with the headline “Jimmy Carter: Jew hater . . .” and then goes on to
get really intemperate. The tattered remnant of the WASP ruling class now
clearly views Israel and their neoconservative supporters in America as a
Frankenstein of their own making. Neoconservatism, like the civil rights
movement, was a black operation which got out of control, because as
Liddell-Hart points out in his book Strategy, all black operations
ultimately get out of control. The WASP ruling class now looks upon the neocons
as the latter day version of Osama bin Laden, except that the Israelis have a
lot more at their disposal than stinger missiles.

The
same thing is true of Sam Francis’s career as a writer. It wasn’t the Negro
that destroyed Sam Francis. In fact, if you look at the end of his career from
a racial perspective, it becomes completely incomprehensible. The next to last
time I saw Sam Francis, he told me the story of how he got fired at the Washington
Times. Sam didn’t look good. He was obviously suffering from the heart disease
that would kill him. Gone was the swagger, but gone with it was, at least in my
mind, the suspicion of me as the Yankee upstart freshman at the junior lunch
table. Sam was a man of principle who showed courage in his writings and
suffered at the hands of those who hated both his ethnicity and his integrity.
When I spoke with him this time, he had been fired from his job as a columnist
at the Washington Times. In fact, that was the topic of our
conversation.

Sam mentioned a
memo he had seen, actually a fatwa, issued by the Anti-Defamation League
demanding that someone do something to stop his writing. The man who stepped
forward to pull the trigger in that act of targeted character assassination was
William F. Buckley, the godfather of modern conservatism, and a Catholic.

Once again the
dynamic of this sortie in the culture wars was ethnic/religious. Buckley
volunteered to go on a mission of the sort which had characterized his entire
tenure as the editor of National Review. He was going to be the goyische
front man (or trigger man) for the Jewish interests that had supported him
since the inception of that magazine in 1955. In case you’re interested in the
details, I recommend again Murray Friedman’s book The Neoconservative
Revolution, especially the section on the role people like Martin Liebman,
and Frank Meyer and William (Willi) S. Schlamm, and other “forgotten Jewish godfathers”
played in the creation of National Review. In return for the favor,
Buckley acted as their goyische hit man, rubbing out whomever they found
convenient. Buckley, it should be noted, didn’t just treat Southern Protestants
this way. By the time he got around to rubbing out Sam Francis, he had already
knifed fellow Catholics like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran in the back.

Sam was well aware of what
Bill Buckley and National Review had done to the conservative movement.
In Shots Fired, he argued that
the serious right would have to go back beyond Burke and the 18th Century to
understand what had happened. Only then could conservatism “work toward its own
liberation . . . from the ideological paradigms that have dominated the
conservative mind since the 1950s and to formulate a new paradigm that can more
correctly identify who is a real enemy and who is a real friend of the core of
the American nation and the Civilization of European man that our nation
represents” (p. 276).

Sam is right. If what’s left
of the WASP establishment or the paleoconservatives or other men of good will
want to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to
understand just who the enemy is in this battle. But in order to understand
that, they will have to go back well beyond the ‘60s to understand what is
going on. In order to answer that question we have to go back well beyond the
18th century, in fact 1800 years beyond it, back to the opening shot in the
culture wars. This battle began 2000 years ago, at the foot of the cross, when
Annas and Caiphas, the Jewish high priests said to Jesus Christ, “If you come
down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.” Needless to say, Jesus
did not come down from the cross, and because he didn’t the Jews rejected Him,
chose Barabbas, and became revolutionaries, condemned to seek heaven on earth
by following one false Messiah after another from Simon bar Kokhbar, to
Shabbetai Zevi, to Alex Portnoy, to Paul Wolfowitz.

Sam has also written that
“The distinguishing feature of 20th century revolutionary behavior and thought has
proved to be . . . precisely its racial character.” But his own demise in the Culture
Wars belies that statement.

So, as Sam would say, who is
the real enemy?To answer that
question, let’s return again to Professor MacDonald’s analysis of the NAACP,
the premier organization in both chronology and size of “the Jewish-black
alliance.” That alliance “essentially involved wealthy German Jews aiding black
organizations financially and though their organizations abilities.” That meant
Jewish organizers like Joel Spingarn, who “was chairman of the NAACP from 1914
to 1934,” but the NAACP could not have survived without the support of wealthy
Jews like Jacob Schiff, the man who bankrolled the Bolsheviks.

The real enemy, it turns
out, both here and in Russia, was the revolutionary Jew.

He is not our enemy because
of some occult racial inheritance. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because
he has rejected Logos. This means that Jews to the extent that they accept,
honor and revere Logos, are not our enemies. There are Jews who accept Logos
fully by sincerely accepting baptism, and there are Jews who accept it in some
lesser capacity by their docility to the truth. We all know Jews like this, and
they should not be excluded from our fellowship, especially since many of them
have suffered at the hands of “the Jews” themselves.

As the Gospel of St. John
makes clear, the Jews became “the Jews” the minute they rejected Christ. As
such, their only identity is negative. The minute they rejected Logos, which
means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined
enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any
society not of their own revolutionary making. Thirty years after rejecting
Christ, the revolutionary Jew rose in rebellion against Rome. Seventy years
later they united under Simon bar Kokhbar, one of their many messiahs, and
tried the same thing again. Having failed to destroy Rome they attempted to
destroy the Europe which St. Benedict created out of the ruins of the Roman
Empire and to replace it with one of their many deadly Utopias. What do
Jerusalem under Simon bar Kokhbar, the Soviet Union under Trotsky, Zinoviev,
Kamanev, and Radek, the short lived Soviet Republics of Bavaria under Kurt
Eisner and Eugene Levine and Hungary under Bela Kun, the racial Apartheid state
known as Israel under terrorists like Menachem Begin or Itzhak Shamir, or the
neocon never-never land known as a free and democratic Iraq have in common?
Death is what they have in common.Lots of people have to die to bring about the revolutionary Jew’s
version of heaven on earth.

The West which we seek to
preserve is based on docility to Logos, the order of the universe which makes
discourse possible. The essence of the Jewish Messianic politics which seeks to
create heaven on earth is rejection of Logos, not sacred (or wicked) DNA. The
essence of the Jewish rejection of Logos is known as the Talmud, which is
anti-Logos in every sense of the word, from hatred of Christ all the way down
to rejection of the practical logos that is known as morality. We saw a recent
example of Talmudic thought this summer during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon
when Charles Krauthammer and the Jewish rabbinic council attacked the Just War
theory--in particular its ban on killing noncombatants and the principle of
proportionality--as a “Christian” idea and, therefore, one which Jews did not
have to follow. The principles of the Just War Theory are another word for
civilized behavior. Those who refuse to be bound by them are barbarians and
deserved to be treated as such.No country can implement Talmudic thought--as our country has—and not
suffer the consequences that rejection of Logos necessarily brings with it.

In France in 1890, in wake
of the one hundredth anniversary celebration of the French Revolution, the
Jesuits who wrote for Civilta Cattolica explained how widespread
rejection of Logos, in the form of the French Revolution, led to bondage, in
particular bondage to Jews. The same thing is true of our country in the wake
of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. We swallowed the bait of sexual
liberation and ended up enslaved by our enemies. Lest anyone misunderstand me,
I am saying that the Jews are our enemy insofar as we are partisans of Logos. They
are the enemy of Logos, because their religion is based on hatred of Logos.

Lytton Strachey and his
friends once referred to the subversive movement we call Bloomsbury as the
“higher sodomy.” Taking a page from his book, I will refer to Christianity in
general and Catholicism in particular as the “higher Logos.” Those of us who
follow the higher Logos know, however, that the only proper response we can
make to our enemies is to love them, and the clearest manifestation of that
love is our desire to bring them to the Truth, otherwise known as the Logos. We
should work for their conversion to the Higher Logos.

At this point, it should be
obvious that I am not just talking about Jews as the enemies of Logos. I am
also talking about Christians who want to live and act like Jews. The Puritans
spring immediately to mind along with the poisonous Judaizing influence they
have had on America from the moment of its birth. But I am also thinking of the
character assassins and apologists for usury, pornography and other Jewish
forms of social control, those who feed at the trough of institutions like the
Bradley Foundation - their name is Legion - and earn their money by poisoning
the public mind.

The same forces which used
the NAACP to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United
States, the same forces which subverted the idea of conservatism, are still at
work today. As Nelson Algren once said, every movement begins as a cause,
becomes a business, and ends up being a racket. This is nowhere more true than
in the civil rights movement, where the NAACP made the transition from cause to
business, and the name of the racket is the Southern Poverty Law Center. In
case you haven’t noticed, the SPLC has declared war on Catholics. Traditional
Catholicism is now featured as harboring 100,000 anti-Semites. I have been
listed as one of the most prominent of those 100,000, even though I am not now
nor have I ever been a traditionalist. Another man on the list is Lt. Commander
John Sharpe, who has just been suspended from his job as public relations
officer on the USS Carl Vinson pending an investigation into his involvement in
“supremacist” organizations.

Why has John Sharpe, an
Annapolis graduate and career officer in the Navy, incurred the wrath of the SPLC?
Was it because he plotted to blow up a Church in the South? Was it because he
was lowering in the bushes in Mississippi with a rifle waiting to shoot civil
rights marchers? Was it because he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Was it
because he believes in racial supremacy? Was it because he urged people to harm
Jews? No, John Sharpe was singled out for persecution because he was a Catholic
and because he decided that he didn’t want to go along with all of the Catholic
prostitutes—Father Sirico of the Acton Institute springs immediately to mind--
who were claiming that free market laissez faire capitalism was completely
compatible with what the popes had to say in encyclicals like Rerum Novarum
and Quadragesimo Anno. John Sharpe made the mistake of re-publishing
distributist classics by writers like G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, and
for that his patriotism has been called into question by the United States
Navy, which has accepted as worthy of something other than contempt the smears
and slanders of the SPLC.

But it wasn’t just
distributism that got John in trouble with the SPLC. It was also his two-volume
attack on the war in Iraq, Neoconned and Neoconned Again, to which I
contributed. The slanderers at the SPLC referred to the Neoconned
volumes as containing “several articles by racists and anti-Semites.”If the idiots at the Navy who
collaborated in the SPLC smear of John Sharpe’s name had taken the time to look
at the book the SPLC cited they might have found notorious anti-Semites like
Noam Chomsky, Paul Gottfried, and Jeff Steinberg among its contributors. Why
would a Jew hater include Jews among the contributors to his book? Probably
because he is not what the SPLC says he is. The article in the Navy Times
attacking John Sharpe was based on the legwork of the SPLC’s paid troupe of
character assassins, and it gives new credence to the old oxymoron joke about
military intelligence.

In the end, when Father
Scalia entered his hospital room and asked him if he wanted the sacraments of
the Church, Sam Francis chose the Higher Logos, and we can honor him by
choosing the cause of Logos as we enter the next phase of the culture wars.
Both Sam Francis’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism and the persecution of
John Sharpe are symbolic of a shift in the culture wars. The offensive launched
by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best indication I can offer that the
main front in the culture wars is now the confrontation between Jews and Catholics.
The Enlightenment is finally dead. There are no more quasi-Masonic movements,
where each of us can rise above whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge
known as “conservatism” or liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter what
our religious or ethnic background, should rejoice at this development because
in this confrontation 1) the Church has both a history and a set of beliefs
that will lay to rest forever the charge of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a
tool of political oppression and 2) because no matter how much they want to
finesse the attack by focusing on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews
have taken on a considerable group of people, who will react eventually to the
attack. The situation in Hungary now is a case in point.

And finally, we should be
happy because the attack clearly defines the terms of engagement, all of which
are all spiritual. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter
of Logos, not because of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the
machinations of the revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of
that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed. Like St.
Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who
put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been
persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the
enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).

We are now engaged in a battle
which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this battle
have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been
stronger; the Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual
battles--and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a
spiritual battle--no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul,
representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.”
Then the revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite position has to say,
“When I am strong, I am weak.”We
are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for
despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned
by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on
every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not
abandoned; struck down but not destroyed."

And so, as Theoden said, “we
come to it in the end, the great battle of our time, in which many things will
pass away. But at least there is no longer need for hiding.” Nor, might we add,
any place to hide. Many if not most of us are here today because our careers
have already been destroyed by the revolutionary Jew and his goyische front
men. The Jews spy on us through our computers. They suborn fellow Catholics to
betray us, get us fired, prevent us from speaking. Our backs are to the wall.
But in attacking John Sharpe, the SPLC has created the American Catholic
version of the Dreyfus affair. They have clarified the issue. By going along
with their slanders, the Navy has put itself on trial. It is our duty to play
the cards which providence has dealt us.We have never been weaker, and our enemies have never been stronger, but
that is no reason for despair, because as Elrond says, “this quest may be
attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong.” And why is that?
Because “such is the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small
hands do them as because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”
(I, p. 283).

At this point, if we were
all French or Austrian or English or Russian, I would utter a stirring call for
the return of the Bourbons or the Habsburgs or the Stuarts or the Romanovs to
the throne. But since we’re all Americans, I can’t do that. We have no common
past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established
religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial
identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no we.
We are a nation of nations, and that is all we have ever been.

All we have is various
ethnic traditions and communities—Sam Francis’s South, my ethnic
neighborhoods—united by the frail bonds of Logos as perceived by a human soul so
beset by human passion. Even if our souls are weak, however, Logos is not.
Logos is the glue that holds the universe together, and so it is strong enough
to unite us as Americans whether it be the higher Logos which acknowledges
Christ as Lord of the universe or the lower Logos which honors him by seeing
this order in the works creation or in the moral law. We are the party of
Logos, and it is only as such that we can think of surviving much less
prevailing over our enemies.

This is the text of a talk
given at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2007. It also
appears, in a slightly different form, as a book review
published in the March 2007 issue ofCulture
Wars.

The
Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones. Jews for Jesus
versus Jews against Jesus; Christians versus Jews; Christians versus Judaizers.
This book is the story of such contests played out over 2000 turbulent years.
In his most ambitious work yet, Dr. E. Michael Jones provides a breathtaking
and controversial tour of history from the Gospels to Julian the Apostate to
the Hussites to the French Revolution to Neoconservatism and the End of
History. A Must Read. $48 + S&H, Hardback. [When ordering for shipment outside the U.S., the price will appear higher to offset increased shipping charges.] Read MoreRead Reviews